TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-section (2) of section 6 provides that the State Government, after giving by notification not less than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may by like notification add to or delete from Schedule B and thereupon Schedule B shall be deemed to be amended accordingly. Schedule B to this Act enumerates items on which no tax is payable in the terms and subject to the conditions of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the same Act. The "existing State of Punjab" on 24th August, 1966, published a notification under sub-section (2) of section 6 of Punjab Act 46 of 1948 giving notice of its intention to amend item 30 in Schedule B to that Act. The notice obviously had to be of three months and, therefore, the date on which it had to expire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Union Territory of Chandigarh, in view of section 88 of the Reorganisation Act, Punjab Act 46 of 1948 continues to be the law in force. It has been one of the contentions on the side of the petitioner that in view of that provision it was the Central Government which could proceed to issue notification under subsection (2) of section 6 of Punjab Act 46 of 1948 and not the Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, but to that the complete reply in the return of the respondent is that by Notification No. S.O. 3269 of 1st November, 1966, the Central Government has delegated its powers to the Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. So this contention obviously cannot prevail. In Act 31 of 1966, Part II de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bom. 299., Jayantilal Amratalal Shodhan v. F.N. RanaA.I.R. 1964 S.C. 648.and Raj Kumar Narsingh Pratap Singh Deo v. The State of Orissa A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1793., in which cases the meaning of the term "law" did come for consideration of the learned Judges, but those cases are not of assistance because if the argument here was whether the final notification issued by the Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh under sub-section (2) of section 6 of Punjab Act 46 of 1948 was or was not law, then those cases could have been of some assistance, but not one of those cases, on facts, has anything near consideration the question that arises in the present petition, that is, whether a notification in the shape of a condition precedent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 46 of 1948, giving three months' notice of its intention to amend item 30 in Schedule B to that Act, have been enforced in or recognised by a court of law? The answer is immediately and obviously in the negative, because court could not have compelled the "existing State of Punjab" to proceed to carry out its intention thus expressed in the notification. Having issued that notification, on representation or objections to it by the persons interested, the "existing State of Punjab" had the right to change its intention. It had the option or choice to proceed to carry out its intention or not to do so. A court of law could not have enforced or have had occasion to recognise that notification through a judicial process so as to have compelle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh valid, was not "law" as that term is defined in section 2(g) of Act 31 of 1966. It is only the applicability of the laws which were already in force in the "existing State of Punjab" that has been continued in the successor States, including the Union Territory of Chandigarh, by virtue of section 88 of Act 31 of 1966. The notification under consideration, not being "law", does not come within the purview of section 88 of that Act. On 1st November, 1966, when the Union Territory of Chandigarh came into existence, that notification was not law which continued to apply to it under section 88 of Act 31 of 1966. On and from that date it was the competent authority, in this case the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh, who could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Schedule B to Punjab Act 46 of 1948. In the facts of this case the earlier notification of the "existing State of Punjab" not being law, has not been available to the respondent to carry out the amendment as has been done. Any amendment, without satisfying the condition precedent as in sub-section (2) of section 6 of Punjab Act 46 of 1948, cannot be held valid. So even this consideration does not advance the argument on the side of the respondent. The consequence is that the notification of 24th August, 1966, of the "existing State of Punjab" under sub-section (2) of section 6 of Punjab Act 46 of 1948 was not law before 1st November, 1966, and has not been law after that date within the meaning and scope of the word "law" as defined in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
